Notorious child molester John Gallienne charged again

Pedophile and former Anglican choirmaster and organist John Gallienne, in 2004 in Ottawa with his wife Lannie – photo by Ian MacAlpine

This is certain to open old wounds, to spark anger, resentment, fear and fury. A virtual boogeyman from Kingston’s past has reappeared to once again cast a frightening shadow over an entire community. Two decades ago, a revered figure in this historic eastern Ontario city’s music and church community was exposed as a ferocious sexual predator. John Gallienne preyed on choirboys, some as young as eight, to feed his relentless pedophilic sexual appetite. He cut a swath through the progeny of some of Kingston’s most notable and most literate citizens, parishioners of St. George’s Anglican Cathedral, the city’s biggest Anglican congregation. Gallienne, who was organist and choirmaster at St. George’s for more than a decade and a half, sexually assaulted and exploited the choirboys he led for his entire tenure. Church leaders knew of complaints about his behaviour within a year of his taking the position in 1975. He was not exposed and prosecuted until 1990. And now, Gallienne has been arrested and hauled back to Kingston from Ottawa (my full story from The Whig after the jump), where he fashioned a new life after his release from prison. Kingston Police did not reveal the arrest until I learned of it through sources and pressed them for comment. Police will not confirm my discovery that Gallienne, like former junior hockey coach and sexual predator Graham James, received a pardon. The James case touched off a national outcry.

Gallienne, whose crimes stunned the community and split the church congregation, was arrested Wednesday in Ottawa and brought back to Kingston, Insp. Brian Begbie confirmed.
“It’s a historic case that goes back a number of years,” Begbie said.
Gallienne, now 65, has lived in Ottawa for some time.
He is scheduled to appear in court in Kingston Thursday afternoon, 20 years after he was exposed as a predator who abused more than a dozen young choirboys over a 15-year period.
The new allegation is the result of a complaint to police by a man who did not come forward two decades ago when Gallienne, then the beloved and brilliant organist and choirmaster at St. George’s Cathedral, was prosecuted.
Gallienne is being charged with indecent assault related to abuse of the man between 1980 and 1982, when he was a child.
The newspaper also learned that Gallienne, like former junior hockey coach and sex predator Graham James, received a pardon from the National Parole Board.
“We can’t confirm or deny [that],” Begbie said. “Under freedom of information, people’s criminal records are protected, if they were to have one and if they were to have a pardon.”
The James case provoked a storm of public criticism that a notorious pedophile was able to secure a pardon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to seek reforms to the pardon process.
“The Prime Minister has asked for explanation on how the National Parole Board can pardon someone who committed such horrific crimes that remain shocking to all Canadians,” Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister said about the James case.
It’s not known when Gallienne received his pardon.
A person convicted of a serious crime must wait until five years after their sentence ends to seek a pardon.
A pardon does not erase a criminal record. In the case of someone convicted of a serious sex crime, the record is kept in a separate location but the name is flagged in the Canadian Police Information Centre, a database used by law enforcement.
Details of the conviction would be discovered by a check that takes place if the person applies to work with children, the disabled or other vulnerable people, according to the National Parole Board.
A pardon can be revoked if a person is convicted of a new crime.
In 1990, Gallienne pleaded guilty to 20 sex crimes against 13 young boys between 1975 and 1990. Two years later, he pleaded guilty to three more sex charges involving another boy.
In 1994, he was convicted of victimizing a choirboy at St. John’s Anglican church in Victoria, B.C. He was choirmaster there in the early 1970s.
He was sentenced to six years in prison. His sentence expired in October 1996, though he was freed from prison on early release in 1994.
Families say two Kingston victims for whom Gallienne was never prosecuted committed suicide.
In 1995, 11 former choirboys and 10 parents shared a $2.1 million settlement that ended a lawsuit against St. George’s Cathedral and the Anglican Diocese of Ontario.
Gallienne preyed on choirboys as young as eight. He abused them at his home, cottage, at the church and on his sailboat. He masturbated them and had them masturbate him. He had oral sex with them and sodomized some of them.
The revelations about his deviance were horrifying for many who knew him and for the community because of the international reputation of the choirs at St. George’s, established in 1892.
The St. George’s congregation has historically been filled with professionals including university professors and Kingston’s most literate citizens. Their children were Gallienne’s prey.
As the scandal unravelled in 1990, it was revealed that church leaders knew of improper conduct by Gallienne as far back as 1976.
Since his release from prison, Gallienne has not kept a low profile. He has been active in the congregation at St. John the Evangelist Anglican Church in Ottawa.
He was leader of the church’s recorder ensemble, according to a report on 2009 activities on the church’s website.
Gallienne also still appears in choir photos on the church website.
In 2004, the Whig-Standard reported that Gallienne was leading choirs and playing the organ at the Ottawa church, in contravention of a lifetime ban (read the original 1994 document outlining the ban) on such activities imposed by a former Anglican leader in Kingston.
He would not answer questions when confronted by a Whig-Standard reporter.
“I’d rather not, thank you very much,” he said, standing next to his wife Lannie Mitchell. “Our time in Kingston was over and done a long time ago. We have a new life up here.” (read the 2004 Whig investigative report)
The bishop in Ottawa reviewed the ban after the newspaper’s report was published and granted Gallienne permission for “limited musical leadership.”
When Gallienne was released from prison, the National Parole Board noted concern that he was a diagnosed pedophile.
“The Board is aware that pedophilia is a life-long sexual orientation,” the board wrote, in a decision. “Your success depends entirely upon your level of motivation to avoid high risk situations, maintain recognition of your offence cycle, and employ appropriate relapse prevention strategies.”

***

Chronology of events in the Gallienne case:

• Oct. 28, 1989: Dean Grahame Baker and Barry Keefe, the rector’s warden, review a letter alleging Gallienne had molested the son of a writer and other boys from the choir• Nov. 3, 1989: Church officials meet Gallienne to discuss allegations. He says there had been no incidents since one reported to the police and the Children’s Aid Society in 1985.• Nov. 13, 1989: A letter is sent to Gallienne insisting on a system of supervision any time children are involved in practices or performances. He was told not to be alone with children.• Nov. 17, 1989: Gallienne sends church wardens a letter saying it’s his policy to never see children alone• November to December 1989: Church wardens contact former choristers and parents; approximately 300 had been in the choir since 1975. The wardens are contacted by a number of people suggesting any investigation into Gallienne is inappropriate.• Jan. 31, 1990: A letter is received from Gallienne’s therapist saying he is at the “benign” end of the spectrum and there isn’t sufficient risk to justify his dismissal• Feb. 13, 1990: Church wardens ask Gallienne for his resignation, effective June 30. The church proposes a separation package for Gallienne.• March 1, 1990: Church parents are called to a meeting to inform of them about current state of affairs and Gallienne’s resignation• March 6, 1990: Following discussions with police, a letter is sent to Gallienne’s lawyer advising of Gallienne’s dismissal. The offer of severance is rescinded.• March 7, 1990: The Whig-Standard publishes a story on Gallienne’s notice in the church bulletin saying he’s leaving the church and Kingston• Sept. 17, 1990: Gallienne pleads guilty to 20 sex abuse charges involving 13 boys, some as young as eight• Oct. 2, 1990: Gallienne is sentenced to four and a half years in prison• 1992: Gallienne pleads guilty to three more charges after a 14th victim speaks to police. Eighteen months are added to his prison sentence.• 1994: Gallienne is convicted of two more sex charges involving a victim at St. John’s Anglican church in Victoria, where he was choirmaster from 1970 to 1974. He receives one year in prison for each charge but his six-year sentence isn’t increased.• 1994: Bishop Peter Mason of the Diocese of Ontario (Kingston) hand-delivers to Gallienne in prison a two-page document that bans him from any involvement in church music programs or positions of leadership in Anglican churches of the diocese. The Ottawa diocese also adopts the ban. Gallienne was paroled from prison later that year.• 1995: 11 former choirboys and 10 parents share a $2.1-million settlement that ends a lawsuit against the cathedral and the Ontario diocese• Oct. 2, 1996: Gallienne’s sentence expires, meaning he is no longer subject to any supervision or restrictions• April 14, 2010: Kingston Police arrest Gallienne in Ottawa and charge him with one count of indecent assault related to the sexual assault of a boy between 1980 and 1982

***

Here is an excerpt from the document that set out a ban imposed by Anglican Church leaders in eastern Ontario in 1994. It barred Gallienne from ever again leading choirs or musical programs or of holding a position of leadership (on mobile? click here to read doc):

Comments

It is unconscionable that he would be allowed to hold a position in church after what he did in Kingston and elsewhere. It sends the message that his crimes were not a big deal YET they caused colossal damage to many lives and continue to cause immense damage to adult survivors, their spouses and families. Even if he is not overseeing children in his position, there are still children in the church. And finally, it’s a huge slap in the face and punch in the stomach to adult survivors who are being re-victimized by his presence. If I was one of his victims and lived in downtown Ottawa and I wanted to attend that church, what does him being awarded a position do to me? That he ultimately still holds power? This is wrong on too many levels.

I was informed by extremely reliably sources that Gallienne was in court today (Monday, June 6th) to face sentencing. Rob, can you please let us know what the outcome of the trial was and what sentence he will face.

As I stated, I am a believer in Restorative Justice measures such as the ones taken with John Gallienne. But I do agree with you. Any activities within his Church where there is even a remote possibility of him re-offending should be carefully and diligently supervised. This means that if he is anywhere near a young person, no matter what the occasion or circumstances, he should have two or more responsible adults monitoring him. What you have said makes it sound like this is NOT happening, which is a worry. You would think that the church community is is in, and even he himself, would be more comfortable being monitored as it would remove suspicion and fear. Of course, none of these things I am talking about have any legal force. He is not under any sentence that I am aware of, and I would guess that any parole conditions or court orders have expired by now.

While I believe there is hope even in horrible cases like these, your reason is very sound. A man with a history of abusing children spanning decades should not be unsupervised, especially if he is in the same kind of environment (the church) where he was known to have committed many of his offenses.

I stand corrected, and I do mean re-accused.
Gallienne’s pre-Kingston history is also notorious for his similar conduct in B.C. according to the facts.
What he does in-between churches and where he is not required to be under supervision leaves me wondering about his behaviour connected with recidivism, and the time period leading up to this is ripe according to the experts, which I am not. Thank God those two new accusations took his position of People’s Warden away otherwise I dread to think of the outcome on our community if he was sitll at large and unshackled without this restraint.

Thank you Norman, those are some very interesting revelations. However, just to be clear – he has not been “convicted” (as you say) again, has he? My understanding is that he has been charged with sexual offenses that date back to the time of the offenses that he was originally convicted of. Unless there are some updates in this case I am not aware of, then we shall have to wait and see if he gets convicted of these new offenses.

If he moves with total freedom and no oversight in an Anglican Church, then that is indeed rather troublesome. The Bishop of the Diocese when he where he offended ordered that he never be involved in music in an Anglican Church again. Of course, he could attend Anglican Churches (except St. George’s Cathedral in Kingston, where he is banned for life) but leading or playing music was supposed to be prohibited. This edict was quickly violated by another Bishop, and I am not even sure if that Bishop consulted the original Bishop. While an edict made by one Bishop is not technically binding for all Anglican Bishops everywhere, there is sort of an unwritten rule that they will be respected. And what edict would deserve more respect and consideration than this one, which is meant to keep people safe?

Again, many aspects of Gallienne’s post-Kingston story are troubling – especially that he is roaming free and practicing music within an Anglican church. The only thing I would want to remind people about are two points. One is that the current charges are of a historical nature (the crimes allegedly took place 30 years ago), and also that we do not have any information that suggests that Mr. Gallienne has re-offended since he was first convicted in the early 1990s.

My prayers are with all the people effected by this case past and present.

I wish we had some up to date information about these current charges and where they are headed.

I witnessed this man only after he was made People’s Warden at the Church of St John’s and after he had to resign from being re-convicted. This is the only time period I was able to observe his freedom of movement with his keys to go everywhere. After he had been re-convicted I witnessed his arrival and departure at the church where he was engaged to play the harp at a wedding last May and at no point was he under the surveliiance of anyone except while he was playing, and that is hardly being supervised. There was an art show for adults in the church itself and one for children in the Parish Hall, through which he walked unescorted to get to his car to leave.

Circles of Support probably do work for most offenders.

If this man had not been re-convicted he would be in his best hunting ground again with keys, given him by an incompetant but trusting Circle.
If the Bishop had not stepped up finally, very recently, probably because of an insurance factor he would still have his keys.

This year’s children’s art show has subsequently had to be cancelled as no doubt the threat to children’s safety is too great.

Gallienne has managed his Circle, or gang, very well and there is an insidious effect from which many people have recoiled and left this church, including the Rector who just resigned.

There is research that suggests that Support Circles work. When an offender of this kind is released, he often has no where to go, no opportunities, no work, etc. But weather or not this deserves our sympathy is not the issue. The real issue is that when an offender has no supports, the consequence is that he has no one to watch him, no one to hold him accountable, no one to verify that he is attending treatment. An offender who is simply driven out of a community by people who say “not in my backyard!” will eventually be in someone’s backyard, or in someone’s town. And when driven out they go into hiding and become a much more dangerous person, because they are no longer being watched.

I’m in favor of much, much longer periods of incarceration for sex offenders. And they should be even longer when the victims are children or vulnerable adults. Incarceration is best in these cases because it’s pretty much guaranteed that they cannot re-offend while behind bars. But most offenders will one day be free, and when they are we need to take steps to protect people. When we take away supports and drive offenders out of communities, we are actually putting more people at risk and creating more opportunities for them to offend. But when we do the opposite, which really does run counter to our intuition, we might actually be creating safer communities.

People here are rightly concerned about Mr. Gallienne’s present situation and his potential to re-offend. But do we know for a fact what the work conditions of Mr. Gallienne are? Suppose those conditions were that he is never in the same area as children, and that at no point is he out of earshot or eyesight of at least two responsible adults who know his situation, who’ve been carefully screened and had some training, and who have agreed to watch him while he is at work? And suppose these conditions where applied stringently, meaning that even if one of the adults can’t make it that Mr. Gallienne simply does not attend that choir rehearsal? I don’t know what (if any) conditions he has are, but if they were like these then I think if would be a very low risk situation in terms of safety. The hypothetical conditions I’ve mentioned here are examples of how a restorative justice approach can work.

This man is still at large in a church where he is allowed to lead music groups in a closeted situation.
There is no visiblitiy of his position available to the public at large and with his being re-accused and his case being remanded there is a danger of his position of leadership being viewed as “okay” to those of undetermined mind. Those who have come to learn the circumstances outllined in the book “Our Little Secret” by Judy Steed, available at the library about child abuse in Canada, know that this man is guilty of so many more crimes than he is being convicted for, and he should not be given such lattitude in such a public domain as a church, also guilty of upholding such crimes. Insurance companies found out the reality of the costs of compensation incurred towards the victims. Does anyone know that he was accused of causing the suicide deaths of two boys?

Other dioceses were not bound by the edict of the bishop of the Diocese of Ontario, Peter Mason. Mason said that he could only negotiate and hope that other dioceses would honour those conditions. The diocese in Ottawa refused, and allowed Gallienne limited privileges of leadership there – something Mason said he should never have again in any Anglican diocese. Mason was not happy about it but could not force the Kingston conditions on Ottawa.

Officials in Ottawa claim that there is nothing to fear, since a Circle of Support and Accountability keeps tabs on Gallienne. He has held significant and prominent lay positions of leadership in the Ottawa church.

After John Gallienne was initially convicted of sexually abusing children in the early 1990s at, the Bishop in his Diocese (the Diocese of Ontario) issued an edict which barred him from attending St. George’s Cathedral ever again, and also barred him from playing or leading music in an Anglican Church again. There may have been other conditions, but I do not recall them. Bishops of other dioceses are supposed to abide by these orders, although I am not certain that they are legally bound to do so. When Mr. Gallienne relocated to Ottawa, obviously it was decided that they would go against this previous order. Was this done in consultation with the Bishop Mason who made the original order which is shown above? I do not know.

But in regards to Norman’s comments, I would hope that if Gallienne was leading a choir that there were strict conditions around his work in the Church. And I hope such conditions would be guaranteed at all times regardless of the situation. The most sensible conditions in a case like this would be that two adults be with an offender in the room at all times when ever a young person or any vulnerable adult is present. Both adults should be carefully screened and trained, and at least one of the adults present should be a female. If conditions like that are followed 100% of the time, then people could have confidence that the offender is not in a position to re-offend. I don’t know what the conditions were at the Church in Ottawa. I hope that they were sound in terms of safety, security, and accountability.

If it were found that conditions like these were not followed, then any reasonable person should have grave concerns. We know that the crimes that this man has committed relate to what many experts believe are a “life long sexual orientation”. So the possibility of re-offending can never be seen as zero.

But having said all this, the present charges that Mr. Gallienne faces are not connected to his role or his membership at St. John the Evangelist in Ottawa. The alleged offenses took place decades ago, during a time period in which Gallienne’s previous convictions took place.

This man is dangerous. He has manipulated the circle of support surrounding him through COSA, at the Church of St. John the Evangelist, enough to have allowed him unsupervised, unlimited access to the church where except for Sundays, he can come across unsupervised children, perhaps while he is playing at a wedding, or upon an unsuspecting altar boy, or perhaps a young unsuspecting child refugee.

Today is Friday, September 24th, 2010. I read an article early last week that said Gallienne would be back in court this week, but I have heard nothing. So am I right to guess that this was just another bail hearing and the case was remanded? Was Gallienne actually in court?

You make some very good points. However, I do not necessarily mean to say that the predisposition towards abusing children is genetic. It could still be non-hereditary and still something non chosen by the offender. But let me again say that even though pedophiles may not choose their orientation, they should still be 100% accountable for what they do. Just as other people are accountable for committing other offenses that they know to be wrong.

As for not confessing about other victims… I think this is a tough issue. We do not know whether or not he confessed to other offenses or not. But you could be right and there is a good chance that he didn’t. Unless he did, but for some reason charges were not brought against him because the alleged victims didn’t want to go through with it at the time. But that’s probably a long shot.

At the end of the day, if he did the crime (in terms of this new allegation) then he needs to be held accountable for it in some meaningful way.

I’m inclined to agree with you that it does look as if there might be some genetic predisposition that helps to lead someone to inflict sexual abuse on a child. And that Gallienne had for a while involved himself in programs to reduce the chance of reoffense. But I also know that he has been putting himself back in temptation’s way, doing so deliberately and with no small measure of arrogance.

I have read studies that say the recidivism rate increases after approximately 15 years, as the offender thinks they are safe, allows stress to build, and so starts rationalizing abusing children again.

Furthermore, if it is genetic, then you would expect the offender to confess to ALL the crimes they had committed, not just the ones they had been called on. You would expect them, especially the ones that call themselves good Christians, to want clean consciences as they seek help to not reoffend. To want to apologize to those they had been driven to hurt.

Since it looks like Gallienne didn’t do that, since it looks like he was happy to cover up his other offences, then I question how much he can be trusted now. I don’t believe he deserves respect if he left other victims without the acknowledgement and repentence they needed for their healing.

I do not know how Mr. Gallienne will plead in this case. And so its difficult to predict the outcome of the case. But assuming that he is convicted there are many issues to consider when it comes to sentencing. Offenses of this nature are truly horrible and have utterly devastating effects on the survivors and those close to them. No one can possibly argue otherwise. But clearly adults who perpetrate these acts are afflicted with some sort of condition that no one would choose for themselves. Human beings choose many paths for themselves, but no one would choose to have the impulses that lead to this sort of behavior. And absolutely a perpetrator of these offenses needs to be held accountable, and prevented (through indefinite incarceration if necessary) from re-offending. Because while they might not choose to have this sort of life long sexual orientation, they can choose to not act on their impulses and to seek treatment. But hasn’t Mr. Gallienne done that? By all accounts he has not re-offended and has involved himself in programs that seek to reduce the chances of him offending again. So would justice be served by re-incarcerating him for acts that (if he is found guilty) are part of a pattern of behavior that has already been addressed by the courts, and that he himself has sought to address after his incarceration? If an adult was a pedophile, but never acted on their impulses and instead diligently pursued treatment, they would be deserving of praise. So shouldn’t an ex-offender deserve some respect if they have truly done all they can do to combat their affliction?

On the other hand, the alleged victim(s) here also deserve to have their day in court, and to have justice done in a manner that will make them feel as though the have been heard and what has happened has been taken seriously. Public safety must also be weighed at all times during a case.

I am not of one mind as to how I think should happen if there is a guilty verdict in this case. But its obviously not a simple matter ethically or legally.

I don’t know why the Star ran that story either. When the story was printed, there was nothing new in the case at that moment, at least nothing that was reported elsewhere or that I had heard about. I have heard that the case will be dealt with this fall. My guess is that one it gets going it won’t take too long to resolve. If John Gallienne pleads guilty, I will be very curious to hear what the court decides to do.

Thanks. But they said there were 2 complainents and your original story said there was only 1.

Another reason I think he should go to jail is that he didn’t confess up front to all the children he victimized. It would have made a difference to their lives if he had acknowledged what he’d done and apologized. Instead, it looks like he only confessed to the ones he was charged with.

I don’t know why the Star ran that story Aug. 15. They essentially scalped all of the information from the previous stories I wrote about the case. To my knowledge, there have not been any new charges and no other victims have come forward. Seemed like the Star was playing catch up on the story.

I would hope that the Church would treat a new victim coming forward in the same way that they have treated past victims in the same case. While one would want to know that a person’s story is authentic, I am not certain that the only way to view it as such would be through a conviction in court. Meaning that I tend to think the Church would be open to supporting someone in a situation like this. But that’s only a guess.

Surely there must be cases similar to this – where an alleged victim comes forward with allegations of crimes that took place at a time where the alleged perpetrator was convicted of previous offenses. I wonder how cases like that have played out?

There is the distinct possibility that Gallienne’s lawyer might argue, behind closed doors, for a deal in which he pleads guilty to the new offence, in exchange for a sentence of essentially ‘time served’ since he already went to prison for crimes committed in the same period. Time served is usually a reference to pre-trial detention, but in this case Gallienne might argue that other victims had ample opportunity to join the prosecutions that took place previously. A guilty plea and no-time behind bars deal would give a victim the satisfaction of knowing that the official record lists him as having been abused, while sparing him the pain of having to testify at a proceeding where the passage of time would be an enemy of the prosecution.

Also, I’m not sure if an alleged victim needs a record of conviction to access help/money from the Anglican Church?

Thank you for the ongoing updates regarding this case. So many people in the Kingston community and in the Anglican Church community remember this case very well, whether they were directly connected to it or were close to someone involved.

At this point, I wonder how things will play out. John Gallienne seems to have “done his time”, and paid a price for what he did. No doubt his family has also paid a great price. Gallienne also seems to have engaged in some programs to prevent his re-offending. So one has to wonder how those facts might play into a case that alleges offenses which would have taken place around the same time as the offenses that have already been dealt with. On the other hand, this new complainant absolutely deserves his or her day in court. This is case that could draw on some precedents and possibly set some as well.

Gallienne’s case is being put over routinely to another date every two or three weeks, meaning the lawyers are working away on it behind the scenes. Nothing is being done in open court. His next date is July 20 at 9 a.m., but neither Gallienne nor his lawyer, Fergus O’Connor, will necessarily even be in court on that date. It will just get put over to another date.

Wasn’t the accused in this case supposed to be back in court in late May or June? Nothing was reported about it anywhere. Is there a new court date? Does anyone know what the status of this case is? Were the new charges dropped or something?

The April 27th court date was just procedure. The case was remanded to May 25. Nothing's happening yet. It's likely that Gallienne's lawyer, Fergus O'Connor, doesn't yet have any disclosure (or very little)from the prosecution – information laying out the nature of the evidence against Gallienne.

Don't worry, I'll keep readers up to date with important developments in the case.

Wasn't Mr. Gallienne supposed to be in court on April 27, 2010? There has been absolutely nothing in the news about this. I can only guess that there are two possibilities… one is that his court date was moved to a later date, which certainly any court would grant in a case where the allegations are so long ago. The other possibility is that some sort of media/publication ban is in effect, but I would think that we would still hear at least something. Apart from this, I would guess that there is a possibility that the court proceedings could be moved to another area, as it would be very hard to be assured of fairness in a town where the defendant has already been convicted of the same sort of offenses.

But again, why did Mr. Galienne not appear in court on April 27th? Does anyone know what happened with this?

John Gallienne is not only involved in the choir of St. John the Evangelist in Ottawa (he was acting choir director for several months while the regular choir director was on sabbatical), he was elected People's Warden at the last St. John the Evangelist Synod this spring. This means he is supposed to represent the people of the parish, including children!

I commend the Rev. Peter Mason for his efforts to try and keep Gallienne out of the choir business. I think it's deplorable that other church leaders (in Ottawa) chose to ignore the ban and have allowed him to continue doing what he wants. More so, by allowing him back in the choir business (even without youth involvement)it is tragically disrespectful to the victims of his crimes and their families. It sends a message that these crimes are not that serious, so we can ignore the ban. I don't care how musically gifted he may be, he's a predator or the worst kind.